Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
by a drone. >> hi, i am a holocaust survivor and a civil rights veteran. and what i see happening in this country as they move towards fascism, which very much resembles that of our germany, which silenced pretty much the labor movement, which restrict to voter participation in the media as well. we no longer have the media that takes on the lives that are being spread and that we are being fed on a daily basis. there are very few outlets we can actually read or hear the truth of what is happening in our government. and my fear is that we are going down a really steep and quick ascent into fascism and i think that is very worrisome. and i am a fighter and i have no idea anymore how this can be stopped because i don't see that there is a movement. he says even when it's hopeless, we have to continue to battle, but there doesn't seem to be a cohesive movement like there was in the 60s. do you have any suggestions about how we can go about this or that she would even agree with the aspect of where we are headed. >> if there is enough people who believe that, then at cnn difference in
with civil rights of the '60s. >> host: john is from illinois now. john is an independent. hi there. >> caller: hi. mr. johnson, the only problem i have is about the tax issue. and the reason why it's like -- the reason why i say that is, our taxes in this country have never been set at actually to be fair. what they were set up for originally was that the rich were supposed to pay the majority of their taxes in federal taxes, and the working class and the poor were supposed to pay most of -- the majority of theirs in home owners taxes, city and state taxes. and that has been all -- it's got everything out of sorts. my problem with what everybody calls a fair tax is, when you're on a fixed income, and these states are going to have to have such a high tax rate because the federal government is going to have such a lower one, that when anybody that is on a fixed tax rate goes in and buys a refrigerator, they cost $400, the lowest one they can buy, they have about $100 tax on the refrigerator. that is the problem. and the only ones it's going to hurt is people that are retired, people
question front and center unlike in the civil rights and the feminists and many of the important movement of our time where there was fear of going in that direction, it would split people, they weren't ready for it, the police would be angry and all the rest of it. this is a movement that said, no, no, no, we're putting the question of the 1% right front and center. that opens a space that i have since filled, that this book is not doable without the space opened by occupy wall street for the interest. if i'm correct in understanding, this is now in its third printing, and it only appeared in may of this year. that -- the thanks go to the people like the occupy wall street people who are willing to break from the tradition not to be limited by the tweedledum, tweedledee either/or republican and democrat and are willing to now push in another direction. >> well, another question on the occupy movement is, was asked about, well, what's happened to it? it seems to have gone into some kind of reis access or stasis. recess or stasis. >> a great political leader of the left whose name i won't
's civil rights, workers rights, or women's rights where people remember why unioners created. most of the world has no rex why it happened. you had to work 18 hours and never got overtime. you got paid a number you live in a town which you work. people don't understand where the value base came from. there is going to be an evolution or innovation in the movement. i see union doing all kinds of interesting thing. don't corporate affairs work they follow pension resources and they take their own money and create economic development. that's smart. looking how do i get economic activity get my folks. ensure my rate of return. do something to get the economy to move again. i think there's a lot of compelling unions that are think abouting it circhtly. to underestimate the kind of [inaudible] >> i would say one thing to watch political any in the jersey we come from a unionized state than a lot of states in the south. the union have different power and i think one of the things that is important to watch you saw it in wisconsin and you see in other places it's a growing system between
marriage equality, i think it is constitutionally guaranteed with the civil-rights of the '60s. >> host: john is the independent. >> caller: mr. johnson mr. johnson, the only problem i have is about the tax issue. our taxes have never been set up to be fair. originally for the rich to pay them majority of taxes in federal taxes and a working class or poor would pay the majority of there's of homeowners gomez city, and state taxes. my problem with a fair tax is we're on a fixed income. the states will have to have such a high tax rate because the federal government has such a low were one. if someone buys a refrigerator at $700 there will be the $100 tax. that is the problem. the only when it will hurt are the people that are retired, disability, and the things like that. otherwise i am in completely in line with you. i voted for ron paul. i voted for paul brown. i cannot remember what year he ran. i voted for ross perot once. i am very open-minded better watch things closely. >> host: thank you for calling. gary johnson and the reaction? >> guest: by going to a national consumption tax
when we will knock it as fast as we can. the weekly standard would agree with civil-rights the goal should be equality of opportunity, not the quality of result, so i think that if you are seeing -- and i don't know that the figures that you gave me are accurate it might reflect the fact that there's a republican primary going on or the fact that one party at that particular time is feeling the same standards the same journalistic standards more than another. you can infer that there are more criticisms of one side and another coming and i think this varies over time and the actual fact that if there is any bias on our part that is just a false logic. >> i don't know if some of those are complaints about republicans criticizing other republicans. it's certainly not 3-1 on our side >> other questions? >> i am keeping deborah hopping. >> addition with we've heard about people choosing to believe their side for their team because i count myself among them i don't think many voters believe being a lawyer is a disqualifying characteristic for a candidate. what is the benefit that you are
the decision about whether they would title a same-sex relationship a marriage, a civil union or domestic partnership. but the test for me is whether the legal rights and responsibilities that someone else has, they should be able to have those same legal responsibilities and rights that i have. >> moderator: i just want to pin you down though. do you believe in gay marriage in the same way that president obama felt the need to clarify his stand, recognizing the institution of marriage as being possible and, indeed, should even be legal between a man and a man and a woman and a woman? cain cain david, i'll go right to the end of my answer. i would let state legislatures because the rules and regulates about marriage have traditionally been state policy, i would let state legislators make the decision about whether they would accord that -- >> moderator: you're not prepared, you're not prepared -- kaine: let me finish. i would be fine if they did it and they labeled it marriage, civil union or domestic partnership. for me is test is, are people given the same legal rights and responsibilit
it was strengthening our economy that we defend the civil liberties and rights of every new hampshire citizens because we want to attract people of talent and energy to our states. that means defending our marriage equality law and making sure that women can chart their own destiny by making their own health care decisions .. i love the public debate between you and ovide lamontagne. has been on social issues. any that you disagree and, how much impact they have on the economy and the impact -- business of new hampshire? hassan: i was on a plan last spring and i sat next to a young man who recruits for a major new hampshire business. he was telling me how important the marriage equality law that we passed was to his recruiting efforts because young people were more interested in coming to new hampshire to work here because we were committed to treating all of our granite staters the police. similarly for women the ability to make their own decisions about when to have families, about what kind of balance they want to seek in the workplace, finishing school, all of those things relate to their ability
of principles that we agree with with pakistan on afghanistan. i think neither of us want to see the civil war. we should find that basis. the question people are struggling with right now with the right mechanism in the bilateral relationship, but the right mechanism to pull people together to find those things we have in common. anyone in the last month or six weeks there've been developments i'm not privy to but i sense i'm moving ahead. per your question is a good one. we don't have, to my knowledge, we have not achieved the kind of meeting of minds on afghanistan that were going to need for this process up to 2014 and beyond 2014 to address. so it is an open question i agree if there is a tough one, that is the. i'm an independent consultant and i have a couple of questions that pick up on other points that i believe you made. if i understood you correctly, you really suggesting that we start our relations when people share our values. i'm sympathetic to that idea. i wanted first to make a comment, which many of those people in some sense identified with our values or goals are at least s
, yemen is expressed their will in providing or in niending -- finding a solution or avoiding the civil war, and, therefore, yes, yemen voted yes for a peaceful state. civil state, mod enstate, that is based on rule of law and respect of the rights of which allow us to get into the second phase and to implement what's left of the political solution and get the yemen out of the bottleneck and to make it less safely, and we have law -- draft law of the transition that will assist in solving all the bloodshed and all the conflicts, and we still in need of the political and economic assistance that we'll help -- will help us a lot in implementing all the other segments of the gulf initiative, and this is why the yemen people are looking for. we got tired of conflicts of wars, and now and through the national dialogue that we are preparing for in order to get this dialogue as soon as possible so we will have a blueprint of a prosperous yemeni based on future freedom and equality and through good governess by reforming the administration and combat corruption and focus on development, and we
or the way it has to be done in the civil way, i think this has to be checked, but we cannot launch a war on the terms that we have now so it's not acceptable for anyone, but at the same time, the right that we are giving to some, we should also ask ourselves why there is a lack of consistency in our policies in the region, and this kind of demonization of iran is not helping the region to find solutions so this is one. the second is about what is happening in e just a -- egypt and in -- what was the point you were making was -- >> [inaudible] >> yes, what is happening, the attack against the american embassy, and this that, of course, it's going to be used by the media. it's going to be once again used by people saying, luxe, -- look, even now, what we said about the uprising, ends up with people against the west. inside, it was very much positive in the whole process over the months of the uprisings is new slogans against the west, new slogans against the united states or european country. it was mubarak and e regime, nothing against the west. it was powerful. it was internal talk and s
in it's approach, and we believe it's not the right way to do it. if you look at precedence using the civil aviation organization for consensus building on international aviation issues, is it much more effective way to do this. we have been clear both on p the record, off the record, and at every level with our e.u. counterparts that this is unacceptable, that we do not support it. if you look closely at the reaction around the world, you'll see that we have a lot of other nations in concert with the united states who also believe the unilateral imposition of that emissions trading scheme is inappropriate. finally, there appears to be some recognition on the european side of late that there are real consequences for doing this. we will continue to press for the appropriate avenues for the resolution of an issue like this. we are continuing to make it clear that we have serious concerns and do not believe it should be implemented, and i think the consequences of the european union moving ahead unilaterally are much butter under by the e.u. these days. >> thank you. >> mr. chairma
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12